Merge remote-tracking branch 'fp/master'

1 files changed, 61 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn
index 9ef3b915..7ea131e9 100644
--- a/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn
+++ b/faq/which_microkernel/discussion.mdwn
@@ -1,3 +1,20 @@
+[[!meta copyright="Copyright © 2011 Free Software Foundation, Inc."]]
+
+[[!meta license="""[[!toggle id="license" text="GFDL 1.2+"]][[!toggleable
+id="license" text="Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this
+document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or
+any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant
+Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.  A copy of the license
+is included in the section entitled [[GNU Free Documentation
+License|/fdl]]."]]"""]]
+
+[[!tag open_issue_documentation]]
+
+[[!toc]]
+
+
+# Olaf, 2011-04-10
+
 This version mixes up three distinct phases: rewrite from scratch; redesign;
 own microkernel.
 
@@ -31,3 +48,47 @@ to the Coyotos port -- which after all is what the title promises...
 
 All in all, I still think my text was better. If you have any conerns with it,
 please discuss them...
+
+
+# IRC, freenode, #hurd, 2011-09-27
+
+    <cjuner> Does anyone remember/know if/why not seL4 was considered for
+      hurd-l4? Is anyone aware of any differences between seL4 and coyotos?
+
+
+## 2011-09-28
+
+    <antrik> cjuner: the seL4 project was only at the beginning when the
+      decision was made. so was Coyotos, but Shapiro promised back then that
+      building on EROS, it would be done very fast (a promise he couldn't keep
+      BTW); plus he convinced the people in question that it's safer to build
+      on his ideas...
+    <antrik> it doesn't really matter though, as by the time the ngHurd people
+      were through with Coyotos, they had already concluded that it doesn't
+      make sense to build upon *any* third-party microkernel
+    <cjuner> antrik, what was the problem with coyotos? what would be the
+      problem with sel4 today?
+    <cjuner> antrik, yes I did read the FAQ. It doesn't mention seL4 at all
+      (there isn't even much on the hurd-l4 mailing lists, I think that being
+      due to seL4 not having been released at that point?) and it does not
+      specify what problems they had with coyotos.
+    <antrik> cjuner: it doesn't? I thought it mentioned "newer L4 variants" or
+      something like that... but the text was rewritten a couple of times, so I
+      guess it got lost somewhere
+    <antrik> cjuner: unlike original L4, it's probably possible to implement a
+      system like the Hurd on top on seL4, just like on top of
+      Coyotos. however, foreign microkernels are always created with foreign
+      design ideas in mind; and building our own design around them is always
+      problematic. it's problematic with Mach, and it will be problematic with
+      any other third-party microkernel
+    <antrik> Coyotos specifically has different ideas about memory protection,
+      different ideas about task startup, different ideas about memory
+      handling, and different ideas about resource allocation
+    <cjuner> antrik, do any specific problems of the foreign designs,
+      specifically of seL4 or coyotos come to mind?
+    <antrik> cjuner: I mentioned several for Coyotos. I don't have enough
+      understanding of the matters to go into much more detail
+    <antrik> (and I suspect you don't have enough understanding of these
+      matters to take away anything useful from more detail ;-) )
+    <antrik> I could try to explain the issues I mentioned for Coyotos (as far
+      as I understand them), but would that really help you?